Visitors Review

(2012-05-24 14:33)

worth the watch, not the buy...

nice movie, well shot, well acted. some parts were cheesy, many scenes involving crowe and his dialogue made you chuckle. and when he whipped out his violin and started playing classical, a bit over the top to portray him as a gentleman. overall, it is worth it to watch, but not to buy. even if this dvd is jammed packed with extras, commentaries, deleted scenes, and alternative endings i would save your $20 and buy something else.

kloader (2012-05-24 10:00)

Action of Captain

This is an extremely good movie, successfully recreating the atmosphereof the era. The special effects depicting battle scenes and adverseweather conditions are especially good. So, too, are the costumes andmake-up.I have, however, one criticism to make. Captain Jack Aubrey (Crowe) isshown on more than one occasion aloft in the rigging while the ship issailing along. I am pretty confident that no Royal Navy captain wouldadopt this pose. The concept of sailing along in the rigging is morereminiscent of Kevin Costner in "Waterworld"! Apart from this one smallbreach of etiquette, a thoroughly enjoyable film.

(2012-05-24 02:46)

Well Worth The Watch, But Maybe Not The Buy....

To be honest, I'm usually not crazy about movies like this, but this is a total exception for me. It reminded me of Pirates of the Caribbean and Pearl Harbor to some extent, but otherwise is totally original.There are a lot of little stories going on in the main story, which is pretty cool. There's the main story, about the rivalry of the two ships, the friendship story between the doctor and a young boy, and a few others that run on and off in the movie.If you liked movies like Pirates of the Caribbean and Pearl Harbor, this movie is a 'must-watch'. Even if you didn't it's still worth watching. I wouldn't buy it before you have watched it, because it's one of those 'make-or-break' movies, but it's without a doubt worth a five dollar rental.

(2012-05-23 16:45)

A riveting journey on a tall ship.

I like historical movies and that was the main reason I went along to see this movie. I did not expect to love this movie so much that I would go back to see it another 2 times! I am not a Russell Crowe fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I thought he was perfect in this part as Capt. "Lucky" Jack Aubrey. The cinematography was just breath taking. The attention to all of the details even the minor ones was exceptional. Although I have to agree with some of the other reviewers the little "duet" scenes were a bit too long and slow. At some points in the movie the supporting characters stole the film from the principal characters, especially the young actor who played Lord Blakeney. While this film was not the best of the year it should definitely be one of the top ten of this year.

vanhorn-1 (2012-05-22 14:53)

One teensy tiny logical fault

There is a crucial logical fault that I believe is overlooked by theaverage viewer -- which uses a Hollywood cliché quite effectively. Itwas demonstrated in the movie that unusually good eyesight was a prizedthing. In fact, Aubrey congratulates one of the crewmen for seeing atiny dot on the horizon that turns out to be a ship. The entire finaleto the movie hinges on the other ship apparently *not* having anybodywith equally good eyesight. Should we really believe that the othership is duped into believing they are just a harmless trader ratherthan the ship they have been having deadly duels with?!? Don't youbelieve their opponent with good eyesight too, would recognize them at,say a mile away and not walk into their trap? It was an entertaining movie, but I don't like the slippery Hollywoodcliché at the end.

(2012-05-22 07:15)

movie is good DVD is a ripoff

I went to the theatre and saw this film the first day it came out. It was differant but i loved it. I couldn't wait for the DVD to be released. However once i saw that there were two versions, and one of the versions cost twice as much as the other i was to say the least angry. One version is just the movie and it costs just the same as any other DVD (might as well just wait for it to come on cable). The other version (the collectors addition) contains all the extra's that you would find on any other DVD movie only they are expecting you to pay twice as much for something you would normaly get for the regular price of a dvd. What a scam. That is the reason i will only give it one star. Like i said, i loved the movie, however the value when buying the DVD is terrible.

liz88_00 (2012-05-20 19:02)

One of the best history movies

I love history and this movie! I thought this movie was great. RussellCrowand Paul Bettany are two are my favorite actors. This action packed flickreally beautifully portrayed the battle on the seas that this time inhistory. I know a movie is good when I get a rush when watching it. I wassitting at the theater in awe. I thought the actors were so good and theyreally did their job well. I was upset when this movie did not get theOscarfor Best Picture. The costume design was also very well done. I was upsetwhen Lord Of the Rings took all 11 Oscars. My favorite character is theDoc.I am so excited for the DVD in April. I hope there are other movies thatareof this quality.

terry (2012-05-20 18:12)

Good ride for the money

Wow! What a good movie.Pros: Lots of action, drama, humor (lesser of two weevils), and no filmwasted on boring romance scenes. There was the real sense of the brotherhoodat arms. It was the first movie I've seen that illustrated the trajectoryand speed of a round fired from a naval cannon.Cons: dumb use of the much overused and abused blue and white effect tosimulate night time. Crowe looked a bit chubby and out of shape for a bareknuckle type sea captain.

(2012-05-20 03:49)

Old fashioned

but so what. A character centered war picture is not something usually as well done as this. You'll be glad you weren't conscripted.

Cineanalyst (2012-05-20 00:29)

Lost at Sea

There are platitudes about how great, and lucky, a naval commander JackAubrey is; there's chatter about the even greater Nelson (Britain'sfamous naval hero, who died in the Napoleonic Wars). Fortunately,Russell Crowe is a strong actor, so there's no disbelief. Based onPatrick O'Brian's novels, the film is fine at romanticizing the sea,shipmen, boats and war, and there's adequate appreciation for detail.The story, however, was lacking. In the movie, the conversationsbetween Aubrey and the ship's surgeon (played by Paul Bettany, who hadmuch more frivolous squabbles with Crowe in 'A Beautiful Mind') exposethe men's differences and not much more. The captain wants to achievethe glory of Nelson and save Britain from Napoleon; the surgeon wantsto achieve the glory of Darwin and go searching for new species in theGalápagos Islands. I don't think cinematography of water, or thelackluster battle scenes were the focus. (In the first battle, PeterWeir takes from 'Saving Private Ryan,' with Crowe doing the deaf andshocked thing that Hanks did so well.) Overall, I think Weir failed; Iwasn't captivated, thrilled, touched or left in wonder or thought.

(2012-05-19 08:08)

Magnificent film- a must see

A perfect example of how to make a film. Director Peter Weir has constructed one of the most spectacular sea-going tales to ever hit the screen. Russell Crowe stars as "Lucky" Jack Aubrey, the undaunted Captain of the HMS Surprise, a British battle vessell which is dogged at every turn by the French warship Acheron. Vowing to bring his antagonists to justice, the vengeful chase is on in this wonderfully exciting, if not rare adventure film. Every aspect of this gem is on target from start to finish: acting, dialouge, cinematography, music, special effects, all first class. A stunning achievment.

bee-17 (2012-05-19 02:26)

What going to movies is all about!

This is the best movie of the 2000's. I challenge anyone to findanother movie that so effortlessly combines genres of adventure,suspense, spectacle, drama, while gracefully interweaving subplots ofwar, science, philosophy, military culture, medicine, and class, andalso staying true to history, geography, and weather. I'm sorry forthat terrible previous sentence, but I don't have the time or literaryskill to do better.This is not a Hollywood film. There are no maniacal villains,expository dialogue, musical crescendos, sweeping CGI views, fast cuts,or faster dialogue. Give the same script to any of the top 100directors in Hollywood today, and you'd end up with the bastardoffspring of Pearl Harbor, Cutthroat Island, and Wild, Wild West.But director Peter Weir had a different idea. His movie is as muchabout the experience as it is about the story. He makes you feel as ifyou were a passenger on this claustrophobic vessel, witness to both themundane and monumental. You feel the dread of the crew's predicament -alone, at sea, and inferior -- knowing full well that they will beannihilated in any confrontation where they do not have the "weathergage." Despite a few beautiful panoramic shots, the film's POV neverstrays far from the ship and her crew. The enemy is distant, largelyunseen for most of the film. One of the film's "chase" scenes is adawn-to-nightfall pursuit, during which the film handles the tensewaiting by showing academic studies and timekeeping. As far as I'm concerned, this film does not strike a single wrong noteand is 2.5 hours of pure movie-going bliss.

AALINAM (2012-05-18 01:34)

BEST MOST REALISTIC SAILING MOVIE EVER MADE

Thank goodness someone still knows how to make a real movie. It is likegetting into a time machine and traveling back in time to see what it waslike to be on an english battle sailing ship. This is Russel Crow's finestperformance yet. "Master" is the right word. A master performance. Thismovie should deserve acadamy award nominations. I am a sailor and this isthe best sailing movie I have ever seen in my life. These characters weresobelievable. The performances were impecable.I give this movie a 10 out of 10.

catnipdave (2012-05-17 14:27)

French get kicked

Very entertaining stuff. Crowe and all the cast did a great job and thebattles were exciting and skillfully filmed.I did wonder while watching it why this particular story was chosen andwhether this had anything to do with it being a Fox (Murdoch)production.Isit too much of a coincidence because of the present political climate inIraq that France gets its ass kicked and there's a not to subtle commmentonFrench greed and and how sneaky the French can be.

(2012-05-17 00:08)

"Master" storytelling that "Commands" your attention

It's not done as often as we would like to think but, here is a movie that is a perfect marriage of style and substance. This is especially hard to find in American films, foreign directors such as Federico Fellini or Akiria Kurosawa had the ability to do many times over. When "Master and Commander" was first released I didn't want to see it. It's not that I thought it was good to be a bad film, but it just simply didn't appeal to my senses. I wasn't until I noticed both of the critics for our papers here in Chicago placed the movie on their "top ten" lists that I decided to see it. "Master and Commander" is just a visual feast for the eyes. This is one of the few times I completely agree with the Academy. This movie deserved every nomination it received, well maybe except "best picture". But still, this is really an enetertaining film from beginning to end. The cinamatography, the sets, the production designs, visual effects, and the music, these are the real stars of the film. Without these things I'm not sure I would have enjoyed the movie as much as I do. All of these things come into place. They all add to the mood the film is trying to create. Almost everything here seems believeable. The plot in a movie like this really doesn't matter. The important thing to do is just sit back and relax. In fact I'm disappointed I didn't see this movie on the big screen. That must have been an experience. Russell Crowe plays Capt. Jack Audrey, a likeable captain who has the respect of his men. They soon find themselves under attack from a French ship. One that is bigger and has more men. That is a vague over view of this film. As I said the plot doesn't matter, I don't want to spend too much time discussing it. All of the acting is convicing. I found the relationship between Crowe and Paul Bettany (Dr. Stephen Maturin) to be very interesting. They are old friends and to me seem to be fighting for the other's respect. The doctor has no command on the ship but sometimes Aubrey listens to him. I've heard people say this is a masterpiece, one of the greatest films they've ever seen. I wouldn't go that far. But, this is a good old-fashion piece of Hollywood storytelling. Director Peter Weir has really accomplished something here. Bottom-line: Nominated for 10 Oscar, the film almost deserved every nomination. A perfect marriage for style and substance. Wonderful to look, but it also has a story. Believeable characters and situations mixed with visual eye candy make this a must see.

(2012-05-16 10:36)

A classic.

I think it's a shame that so many people think this movie is "slow". Iloved the pacing and character development - classic movie-making at itsbest. The scenes in between the battle sequences detailing theinteractions between the crew members are totally engaging. And thesequence in the Galapagos? Sweeps you off your feet.In my humble opinion, this movie is hard to fault. It is very tightlyedited and no scene seems extraneous; the music is perfect for the moodof the movie. I read a comment on some message board where the writercriticized the musical score for not having enough punch. Talk aboutintellectual and emotional impotence. Maybe we should start puttingdrumrolls in comedies so the audience will know when to laugh. Funnything is, I have this movie on DVD and the parts I like the most arethe scenes leading up to the final showdown. I'll usually watch themovie up to the final showdown and then stop.I do hope they make sequels, as long as Peter Weir comes back to directand the studio doesn't try to meddle with the formula to get more crapHollywood whizbang. I've been fairly disappointed with even "the best"of what Hollywood's put out lately and it's important to supportclassic storytelling that uses new technologies instead of being acommercial for the latest in computer graphics technology.

CKCSWHFFAN (2012-05-15 15:17)

Very good film, just over long

As a fan of Russell's I really enjoyed the film. He did anotherwonderful performance. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED FOR AN Oscar. IREMEMBER THE MORNING THE NOMINATION WERE ANNOUNCED, THE CROWD GRASPEDWHEN HIS NAME WAS NOT READ. HE DESERVED IT!!Other actors did good jobs with their roles.Great film to look at.Another good job by Peter Weir. Not his best work, that would be in"Witness". Film was a bit over long. DID NOT NEED THE SHORT SCENE, YESEVEN IF IT WAS THIS SHORT, THERE WE HAVE TO HEAR WHAT HAPPENED TO THESHIPS CREW DURING THE STORM. Also, did not need the scene of thesurgery on young Blakeney . Good extras on the DVD package. I have notbeen able to get the better DVD package. Would like to see that.

rupcousens (2012-05-15 10:14)

Rum, celibacy, and the lash?

Master and Commander is a reasonably diverting film, and undeniablybeautiful to look at, but it strings out a minor naval episode into a prettyinconsequential two hours. Battle scenes are not Peter Weir's overridingconcern – they only take up 15 minutes at beginning and end – so you wouldexpect rather more subtlety of dialogue and character development than thereis in between. These seamen are just too noble to be realistic; OK, sothere's a dash of rum and a flick of the lash, but nothing of the thirdmajor sailing ingredient. Are we expected to believe that, on a shiphalf-full with rosy-faced teenage boys, none of them were (like the Frenchship they are chasing) ‘vulnerable at the stern'?

terrangel (2012-05-15 07:12)

one of the worst movies i've seen and i've seen a lot

this was one of the worst movies i've seen. i'm not entirely sure howit got nominated for ten Oscars. i'm not the only one who thinks so.three people walked out of the theatre. the person beside me dozed off.the ending is one of the crappiest i've seen. i always go to the movieswith an open mind. i try to anyway. i love to analyze them. its what ido. i hoped this would be a smart movie but i was very disappointed. itwasn't even interesting. russel crowe cold have done a lot better.after seeing him in a beautiful mind, i was severely disappointed. theonly person who was remotely interesting was the doctor played by paulbettany. what a disappointment.

JoeyMarie (2012-05-14 16:09)

Master and Commander: Awesome and Breath-taking

In 'Master and Commander' Russell Crowe delivers a performance equal to hisrole as Maximus in Gladiator. He brings Captain Jack Aubrey to life, makinghim perfectly brilliant and courageous. Crowe's supporting cast ispriceless. Filled with stars and others that aren't too known in Hollywood,the casting is superb. From Paul Bettany (if you recall, he played Charles,Nash's roommate, in 'A Beautiful Mind') as Dr. Stephen Maturin, to JamesD'Arcy as 1st Lt. Tom Pullings and new young faces such as Max Benitz andand Max Pirkis ... the cast is perfect.The cinematography is awesome, taking the audience from the middle of theocean to foreign islands. The different colors bring this movie to life andcreate a feeling as if you're actually under Captain Jack's command andexperiencing right there with the crew.